Pink slime

Key word.

I don't know where you're getting this idea. It's obvious that you've demanded proof from him several times now.

Thank you for informing me of your opinion and telling me what you think, I'll be sure to put in a good word for you at the Department of Redundancy Department.

No he doesn't. As demonstrated in the analogy I made, a qualitative assessment of the facts is not inferior or subordinate to a quantitative one. He claims that people are crying over nothing because the level of ammonia is safe, Mayor provides information confirming the claim that ammonia content is safe. He does not not to state his agreement with the facts Mayor has presented. No one needs to agree with facts. The only time you need to speak up when facts are involved is when you or someone else is calling them into question.

He doesn't.

Legitimate.

Or maybe he just didn't feel like it. It's pretty routine for people to state their opinion on a topic with the expectation that those replying have a basic understanding of the topic.

Believe it or not: people actually have independent thoughts. You are not obligated to provide a source for everything you say. If you know that what you're saying is true, then it is often to your advantage to wait until someone calls your claim into question to present a source. It's also perfectly acceptable to let someone else deal with establishing your statement as true. In either case, what you claim has been proven correct.

Summarizes.

It's not necessary for him to have a source in order to make claims about something. A source is clearly helpful, but the validity of factual claims are not determined on anything but their own merit. If what he says is true, then it is valid. It doesn't matter who establishes it as concrete fact.

And, as has been stated several times already, he has no obligation to. Nor should we reasonably expect him to. Nor should we reasonably not expect him not to.

It's clear from your posts in this thread and others, that you have made it your personal mission to discredit this guy at every turn. It doesn't help you for him to be right, as this case clearly demonstrates. Additionally, you still try to attack him even when you agree with what he says, simply because you don't like his character or ideology. As is typical with you, the correctness of your argument is significantly less important than your conviction in it.

Proof has already been offered. That's the point. You're doing this to attack him, not because there is a lack of proof.

Those claims are preposterous and unfounded, yes. But then, we all know that. That's not the argument that I'm calling into question here. You demanded that he provide proof for claims that had already been established as true by a third party. That's the problem with what you're doing.

That is not "the fact". That is very clearly untrue.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Edit: 500 posts, oh yeah.

No....

I sawwy....

1) Thank you for being a spelling nazi. That is sarcasm, in case you don't understand.
2) You have your expectionations, I have mine.
Oh, and my current expectations are based on what you demanded when you came to this forums.
You might call my expections ridiculous, but I call your current lack thereof hypocritical.
3) I don't have to discredit him, nor do I make that my mission, nor is there anything to discredit. As is clear from multiple posts from other members, he doesn't have a reputable leg to stand on.
4) He has proven that he does not have the ability to back up his arguments when others demand it.

The class warfare is being perpetuated almopst entirely by the left. Take a look at occupy wallstreet or any mainstream media network and you can see this. You see it in Obongos own words and actions. Take this retarded buffet rule. It may create 4 billion in revenue but that doesn't do shit for a 15 trillion dollar deficit. Yet Obama is making this buffet rule his top priority. The only reason for that is class warfare.

Do you realize that nearly 40% of Americans pay no taxes? In general it's actually the poor who don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. It's the middle class and the rich who pay taxes. The poor just take without giving back. Should we go occupy skidrow because of this?

Capitalism has it's ups and downs but this collapse were witnessing has come mostly from one terrible leader with an agenda. I'm not saying Bush didn't spend to much but with 2 wars going on if you look at Bush's budget it was actually pretty solid.

Ahem.. You claimed Imperial was "looking for arbitrary bullshit to hate on this guy for," and since you clearly have something going on with Imperial(I'm not sure how to define it, love-hate relationship?) and the fact that it seems pretty random that you chose this thread to bash Imperial, I think you are doing the same...

Meh, I tought it was relevant and mabye I'm a bit tired of the way you've been acting lately...
And let's face it, your ego is massive.

So 40% of American citizens are "poor"? Huh.

No but 40% doesn't pay taxes and that includes virtually all poor people.

Yeah people who make no money pay no taxes.

Maybe if people start to pay their goddamn taxes, there would be less poor people who also would start to pay them (by the way, the amount of money a poor person pays is far less than a rich one). Here is the part where the libertarians and such will claim that I'm wrong and we should abolish taxes.

Edit: I don't know you, but this Internal server errors something something are making me mad.

When has a poor person ever given you a job? If you lower taxes for the wealthy they can use that money to create more jobs. When more people go back to work those workers now pay taxes. Therefore by lowering taxes on the rich you actually create jobs and have more people paying taxes This is basic economics but Obama can't or wont recognize this.

Real life is not like Victoria II. Of course they can invest in the economy and create jobs and all that good stuff, but they can also buy fifteen solid gold toilets, a lake and some lands in Argentina, or speculate at the stock (it's not the same as investing).
You know what, even if I disagree totally with you, I will follow you. Be honored (?

@FacistPatriot.

I am sorry, but your a dumbass. Out of the few people on this forum I dislike, you are the one I hate the most. And that is saying alot because the person before you I hated so much.

Also how is CNN Communist?

??? I know you are asking FacistPatriot, but I just have to say CNN is not Communist in any way. Sure they have a tiny bit of a Liberal Biased(then again I am a Fox Lover so I can't complain about biased), but Communist is really reaching.

Notice the color of CNN's logo? It's red. But I'm sure you also take NPR(National Palestinian Radio) and the MSDNC as credible news sources.

So by that logic fire trucks are communist too?

And the award for best JVS troll goes to... FascistPatriot! Congratulations! Here is Karl Marx to hand you your prize.

Well compared to your ambulance services, i'd say yes.
Good-for-nothing firemen think they can run around hosing stuff, sliding down poles, and driving massive trucks around without even charging their customers? How dare they! Still, what do you expect from a group of uniformed men with mustaches?

I KNEW IT! Oh gawd wait, The Red Cross, oh nononono *shoots himself*

Red is also the color used to represent the Republican Party...